Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48 | The Observer | Roz Rogoff | |

Local Blogs

The Observer

By Roz Rogoff

About this blog: In January 2002 I started writing my own online "newspaper" titled "The San Ramon Observer." I reported on City Council meetings and other happenings in San Ramon. I tried to be objective in my coverage of meetings and events, and...  (More)

View all posts from Roz Rogoff

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48

Uploaded: Oct 25, 2014

This would be my Monday blog, but I'm posting it sooner because the election is a little over a week away and some voters are voting early by mail.

Measures 45, 46, 47, and 48 are the "Peoples' Propositions." These four were put on the ballot by motivated citizens who walked the walk, talked the talk, and collected signatures to get them on the ballot.

Measures 45 and 46 are opposed by Insurance companies and medical organizations with deep pockets that want them defeated. So there are a lot of ads on TV against them. Don't fall for the NO ads.

Proposition 45 "Requires Insurance Commissioner's approval before health insurer can change its rates . . . " There's a No on 45 commercial where the woman says, "Treatment decisions should be between Doctors and patients . . ." and not by a politician. That politician is the Insurance Commissioner, who regulates rates and coverage for ALL OTHER kinds of insurance in California.

I agree with the woman in the commercial. Treatment decisions should be between Doctors and patients, and NOT by an insurance company that decides what they are willing to cover and how much they are willing to pay. VOTE YES on 45.

The Pack family was largely responsible for putting Measure 46 on the ballot. They didn't want anyone else to suffer their loss. I don't know the Packs personally, but I am a friend of April Rovero, who was President of the San Ramon Valley Soroptimists when I was a member ten years ago,

April lost her son Joey to a prescription drug overdose when he was a student at Arizona State University. Here's a link to April's testimony before a Congressional Committee in 2011 as Founder/President of the National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse.

Doctors abuse prescription medicines, not only by improperly prescribing them like Joey's case, but also by taking them while on the job. This is a serious and known problem in the medical community. So Vote YES on 46. You never think this could happen to you until it happens.

Measure 47 is almost invisible. There are no ads for or against it. So what is it and why do I want you to vote YES?

Proposition 47 would "Require misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug and property offenses." This would not apply to anyone with prior conviction for a serious or violent crime. This would potentially save the State millions of dollars every year, and remove the stigma of a felony charge for what should be treated as a less serious offense.

The last of these four measures, Proposition 48, would allow Indian gaming off reservation land. This sets a bad precedent which could result in the Nevadafication (my own word) of California. According to the 500 Nations website, "Today 62 of the 109 California tribes own 68 casinos including 50 Indian casinos, 15 Indian casino resorts and 3 mini-casinos. These casinos host 63,835 total slot machines."

Look at the map of California from the link above. Do we need MORE casinos off the reservations now? Senator Diane Feinstein says "NO," and so do I. Vote NO on 48.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by Drugs are bad, a resident of Carriage Gardens,
on Oct 25, 2014 at 10:22 am

Prop 46 means well but is misguided. The proposition is about more than just drug testing physcians. Bundling several important but separate issues into one proposition like 46 is dangerous. Read the entire proposition before voting for or against it. Medical groups have raised millions to defeat and trial layers have raised mIllinois to get it past. Who do you trust?

Posted by Joe, a resident of Dublin,
on Oct 25, 2014 at 11:53 am

Thank you for your support for Prop 46 and here are some more reasons for readers to vote for it.

The effects of the 1975 MICRA law 250K cap have now reduced the value of many of your family members to essentially zero as you can not obtain a lawyer in any wrongful death malpractice case for them.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans die yearly as the result of preventable medical negligence. Common hospital malpractice errors include: incorrect medication/dosage, surgical mistakes, preventable infections, diagnosis failures, birth delivery mistakes, anesthesia errors and under/over treatment.

All Californian families are now denied any justice and accountability when a family member without job income(children, retirees, ect) dies as a result of medical errors due to the 1975 MICRA law which malpractice insurance companies backed and that capped the non-economic "pain and suffering" award to 250K with no adjustment for inflation. Except in rare punitive damage cases this is the only award available.

Malpractice lawyers will not take these wrongful death cases because the MICRA law also limits the attorney award to about 30%(BPC 6146) or about $75K of any maximum $250K award and attorney and medical expert costs in a case quickly exceeds $75K, search on "caps harm California" and "protectconsumerjustice org how micra came to be".

Governor Brown who signed MICRA into law said 17 years later that MICRA did not lower health care costs and only enriched insurers and placed negligent or incompetent physicians outside the reach of judicial accountability. Ralph Nader has reminded Governor Brown's of this earlier statement and has asked him to support Prop 46.

The MICRA cap and low non-economic damage caps in many other states have enabled malpractice insurance companies to earn billions in profits by essentially eliminating their monetary liability in these cases. It's no wonder malpractice insurance companies have spent tens of millions to defeat Prop 46 which doesn't even eliminate the cap, only adjusts it for inflation.

California malpractice insurance companies profit an incredible 70 cents for every dollar collected in malpractice premiums which leaves plenty of room for an increase in malpractice payouts without a rate increase to doctors.

22 other states do not have a non-economic damage cap and medical insurance rates are not any higher in those states nor are there shortages of physicians.

Since 1988 Prop 103 has regulated doctors malpractice insurance premiums and can not be increased unless justified with the Insurance Commissioner.

California drivers do not have a law that eliminates their liability if they kill a person in a car accident and neither should negligent medical professionals and their insurance companies. When there isn't accountability there isn't a deterrent to avoid repeating negligence.

Prop 46 also includes testing doctors for drug and alcohol which is done in other occupations such as in the transportation industry. Certainly it is in the public's interest for doctors to be thinking clearly when they have our lives in their hands.

Overprescribing of prescription narcotics is now a national epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control cited 475,000 emergency room visits and 36,000 deaths from prescription narcotic overdoses in a recent year, at a price tag of $72 billion in avoidable health care expenditures.

Prop 46 will also require physicians to check the state's existing and secure DOJ CURES prescription drug database before prescribing narcotics and other addictive drugs to curb doctor-shopping drug abusers, to prevent over-dose deaths and to reduce harmful behavior and health care costs.

PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 46 for Public Safety and Patient Justice.

Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 25, 2014 at 1:57 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.


You sound like the trial lawyer the previous poster complained about. I agree that the MICRA cap needs to be raised, but as far as I'm concerned that's the least important portion of Proposition 46.

Proposition 46 is a mélange of three things that don't all go together but probably needed be added to get the signatures and support necessary to get on the ballot.

The two important parts are drug testing of doctors and controlling prescriptions of controlled substances. Let's put Dr. Feel Good out of business. She's the one who prescribed the medically unnecessary and fatal substance that killed Joey Rovero.

Proposition 46 cannot solve all of the drug related medical problems, but it is a step in the right direction.


Posted by Enough! , a resident of Beratlis Place,
on Oct 25, 2014 at 5:43 pm

Sorry Roz, but you have just lost a reader. I believe you using you power in this way is entirely inappropriate and unprofessional.

Posted by Tim Bucktoo, a resident of another community,
on Oct 25, 2014 at 6:36 pm

Prop 48 a "people's proposition?" Really. It was put on the ballot by rich tribes who own casinos and want to stop competition from poor tribes who have nothing. The North Fork tribe deserves the same opportunity to provide for their members as other
california tribes. This casino is provided for under the law and are very rare. Don't buy into the greedy tribe's rhetoric.

Posted by Eric Andrist, a resident of another community,
on Oct 25, 2014 at 6:57 pm

Thanks for the Prop46 yes endorsement!

My disabled sister, Cali Andrist died of medical negligence. Our mother died in the same hospital from hospital acquired sepsis a decade earlier, just three months after actor John Ritter died there and his family sued/settled for millions of dollars. My sister's lawsuit, because she was disabled with no income, does not qualify for economic damages, only the non-economic damages that are capped by MICRA at $250,000. It took me over 8 months to find a lawyer who would accept my case, with over a dozen turning me down, not because the case was without merit, but because of MICRA. I can't tell you how many other victims I've met in the last couple of years who can't get lawyers at all or got one only to have them run out of money before they ever got to court.

People love to badmouth lawyers until they actually need one.

Please vote yes on Prop 46. Trust me, you don't want to find yourself harmed, or a loved one killed by medical negligence and then not be able to hold someone accountable for it.

It was voters themselves that talked the campaign into adding the drug testing portion...they liked that it made a well-rounded patient safety initiative. Anyone who complains about it having three components is just falling for the BILLION DOLLAR INSURANCE INDUSTRY PROPAGANDA.

Every good recipe has more than one component, but it makes for one single good outcome. In this case, it will keep us all safe from bad doctors.

And don't get me wrong, MOST doctors are great. It's about 5% of the doctors doing 95% of the damage.

Posted by nativenation14, a resident of Valencia,
on Oct 25, 2014 at 8:04 pm

Vote yes on prop 48!!!!!! How fair is it that all these other tribes like churshanci, morongo, pala and pechanga can have these big ass casinos and say no to northfork weren't we all suppose to be one nation having each others backs "brothers and sisters"its bullshit truth is all these big name casinos are greedy ass natives they got theirs so screw the rest!!!greedy ass natives who are afraid of some competition plan and simple why dont all of you step aside and let the other tribes have theirs too!!!!

Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 25, 2014 at 8:46 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.

Native Nation and Tim Bucktoo

Tim you got Prop. 48 backwards. Yes on 48 will allow the North Fork tribe to build a casino OFF their reservation. I am not against the tribe, but allowing them to change the rules could open the floodgates to casinos anywhere in California. I am against making gambling California's #1 industry.


Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 25, 2014 at 8:48 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.

Adios Troll! I've had "Enough!" of you too.


Posted by Tim Bucktoo, a resident of another community,
on Oct 26, 2014 at 11:11 am

Sorry SRO, but the North Fork casino is completely legal. It is allowed under the exact same law that the other tribes used to open their casino. But the North fork Tribe will share the revenues with local governments and the big, rich Tribes believe that sets a bad precedent. That's why they are putting millions into the No vote to stop the casino from opening.

Posted by Christopher Everspark, a resident of Rosewood,
on Oct 26, 2014 at 1:57 pm

One should always be wary of someone telling them to vote one way or another.

Web Link

Posted by nativenation14, a resident of Valencia,
on Oct 27, 2014 at 10:24 am

Here we once again no matter how you look at it these big casinos are afraid of competition i care care how any of you voting for No on prop 48 is seeing it thats what it all boils down to . I highly doubt its gonna start an avalanche of casinos being built in California its not that simple there are plenty of baby steps that must be taken first , Northforks location has been theirs go and open a book and read the history on that land before you open your mouths and think you know what your talking about . Northfork has fought a hell of a fight for the last decade for their people to have a little something to call their own just like pala ,pechanga, morongo. Its all about competition plain and simple it absolutely has nothing to do with the land in trust they see it has "their competition money Taken from their pockets", and its sad really so let them have theirs and let Northfork stay in poverty. I dont think so the Nothfork Mono Natives. Most DEFINITELY DESERVE THEIRS TOO VOTE YES ON PROP 48!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by nativenation14, a resident of Valencia,
on Oct 27, 2014 at 10:27 am


Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 27, 2014 at 3:47 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.

nativenation 14,

I reread Proposition 48 and read AB 277 and downloaded an 18 page summary of AB 277. Web Link And after researching this I am changing my endorsement to YES on 48.

But your shrill tone doesn't help. I am not paid to answer comments, nor for the time I spend researching information for my blog or a comment. The summary linked to above is very helpful in understanding the whole history of the North Fork Tribe's attempts at starting a casino. However, the tribe is not doing a good job of winning voters to their side.

It isn't clear who put this referendum on the ballot. I thought it was required by state law for voters to approve putting the casino outside of reservation land. There are also some environmental issues about building a new casino in this location. So a Yes vote not only ratifies the gaming compacts between the two Indian tribes and the State, it also omits certain projects from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

So who is behind this Proposition? Are you saying rival tribes with nearby casinos are trying to keep this one out? According to the map on page 43 of the Voter Information Guide, North Fork Rancheria is located near Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino and two other casinos to the south of Highway 41.The proposed location for the casino is 38 miles East on Highway 99.

If this proposition is defeated, ". . . the North Fork Tribe currently has land in trust that is eligible for gaming. The Tribe can conduct gaming on land they already hold in trust." There are people occupying that property but they could be legally forced off or bought off. So this proposition doesn't keep the North Fork Tribe from building a casino. It just enables them to build one where they want to have it.

Posted by George Custer, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 27, 2014 at 5:46 pm

Isn't enough that the tribes gave us tobacco?

Posted by Daveg, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 28, 2014 at 10:00 am

Daveg is a registered user.

Roz, it appears that regardless how one votes on prop 48, the reality is that Casino's will be a fact of life in California. I for one have no problem with that. People need to be responsible for their own actions. See attached out lining what will, more than likely, occur.
Web Link

Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 28, 2014 at 10:45 am

How anyone can vote for a proposition(46)in which it's advocates run literally the worst campaign commercial I have ever seen is beyond me. Roz, and you other backers of proposition 46, have you seen the recent ad that has a guy in a white coat that is suppose to be a doctor sitting at a bar and getting drunk and ignoring his emergency beeper?

Outrageous, offensive, and insulting ad that your people are running, and it shows you there are no limits to what the ambulance chasing lawyers will go to in order to further line their pockets. That ad alone should make you realize the type of people behind this misguided proposition, and question their motivation and integrity.

You can have an honest and informed and intelligent debate about the proposition, and perhaps the MICRA limits should be increased, to about $300,000. But the ambulance chasers do not want to discuss the facts in an honest manner, and running this disgusting ad is an all time low.

Shame on them for their selfish, misleading, and outrageous ad, and shame on you and anyone who condones this type of ad by voting for their proposition.

Posted by Rick Strand, a resident of another community,
on Oct 28, 2014 at 10:54 am

Thank you Roz! Prop 46 will make the Dr. slow down and spend more time on the patient. Prop 46 will hold the Dr.. accountable when they're careless. Prop 46 will require be drug/alcohol tested, ensuring our safety. The days of the 5 minute appointment, tossing out a plethora of prescriptions without proper diagnosis is coming to an end!! The days of marginalizing our loved ones is ..coming to an END. Finally, this white coat, God like complex and arrogance is coming to an END! I look forward to this becoming a law! * I am a parent who lost his healthy 24 year old daughter, a new mother of just 4 months to a local doctor who carelessly gave her 2 medication that put her to sleep permanently/dead and the opposition wants me to be accepting? Not so much! This health and safety initiative reaches into each of our homes, providing that very necessary added layer of security for our families. For those thinking this is about the attorney's.....Keep in mind that this is the only door open to you when you seek justice and want to hold a Dr. accountable. The only door!! ~ unless it falls under MICRA. Regardless, as soon as Dr's learn of our loved one's death, they call legal, circling the wagons while we're still in shock, bawling uncontrollably. We can expect more and we are going to get it.,,,,,,,,,Yes on 46!

Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 11:22 am

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.


I have seen that ad and I agree it is terrible. I guess they didn't have enough money to put on a better ad. Still the one with the woman Doctor saying that a Politician (The Insurance Commissioner) would have power to regulate rates (which is what the IC does) and what is charged for services (instead of big insurance companies setting what they will or will not pay for treatment), is almost laughable in it's upsidedownness. Those are the reasons to vote FOR Prop. 46.


Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 11:43 am

Am: On what basis do you defend $300,000? $250,000 in 1975 was worth $302,000 in 1978. If you are saying that pain-and-suffering and other non-economic damages are wrong-headed, then argue for zero. But if $250,000 was the right cap in 1975, the inflation adjusted number is not the 1978 equivalent, but the 2014 equivalent = $1.1M.

Put another way -- would you work today for what you were paid in 1978? What am I missing?

Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 11:53 am

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.


It took ten years for the North Fork Indians to get all of the State and Federal approvals and State Assembly approval to build their casino on a separate piece of property. This isn't something that any tribe could do overnight. No floodgates here.

I copied an excerpt below from the Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 277 Web Link A YES vote on Proposition 48 would ratify what the State Assembly voted to approve.

"According to the Tribe, in 2004, the Tribe requested that the Secretary of the Interior take the proposed gaming facility site in trust for the Tribe for gaming purposes. Because the land would be taken into trust after 1988, the Secretary would first need to determine if the proposed site would qualify for gaming under any of the exceptions found in Section 20 of IGRA. These Section 20 exceptions were intended to level the playing field for tribes such as North Fork without a viable land base because of past federal policies and provide them with the same opportunity as other tribes.

According to the Tribe, starting in October 2004, the Bureau of Indian Affairs began preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) - the most rigorous level of review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - for the project in connection with the proposed trust acquisition. The draft EIS was published and circulated for comment in February 2008. The final EIS was published in August 2010, and the Record of Decision was issued in December 2012.

The Tribe states that they adhered precisely to the spirit and letter of the rigorous and lengthy federal review process and, after considerable consultation, analysis, and review, the Secretary of the Interior approved the requested actions."

Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 12:35 pm

Roz: The commercial you are referring to pertains to proposition 47, not proposition 46, and the lady is an actual medical doctor, licensed in the state of California, who offered her opinion on the proposition. The ad I reference is the horrific ad where an actor playing a medical doctor in a white coat sits in a bar getting drunk ignoring his ER beeper.

Tom: Cost of living analysis may work for union-employer salary negotiations, but not in analyzing the affect of increasing general damages(pain and suffering)has in medical malpractice cases, especially since so many professional liability policy limits are $1 million. If you increase the general damages alone to $1.1 million as this proposition advocates, before evening getting to special damages(past and future medical bills, wage loss, etc)you have a situation where every plaintiff's attorney can roll the dice and demand the full $1 million policy limits in every case. The professional liability claim reps would have the threat of bad faith lawsuits and potential verdicts over the policy limits, and would be coerced into essentially offering the full policy limits in almost every case. This would lead to an increase in frivolous lawsuits, increase in insurance premiums for doctors, increase in medical bills, and more doctors getting out of certain specialties such as OBGYN and neurosurgery, where risk of litigation is high.

Applying your cost of living approach simply does not work in the real world of litigation. That is why over the years the jurisdictional amount for limited jurisdiction lawsuits($25,000 or less) has not gone up based on inflation or cost of living, and jurisdictional amount for small claims lawsuits has not gone up based on inflation or cost of living.

Tom, or Roz, how would you feel if there was a proposition that required drug testing of bloggers, or legal recruiters(Tom), and those backing those propositions ran an ad where they falsely claimed some actor was in your profession and was drunk at a bar and not doing their job? Atticus Finch, how would those shoes feel?

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 1:02 pm

Am: First -- as I wrote in my blog, I am a No on 46 because of the drug testing and CURES d/b provisions, which I think miss the mark. Not so with MICRA -- if it was alone, I'd vote for it.

Your argument seems to be that the cap must continue to shrink in real terms, lest malpractice policies have to be written for a larger amount. That doesn't appeal to me. I'm certain the insurance companies can find a way to update their policies to reflect the higher exposure (in dollars terms, although not in real terms). I am not worried about them, or about plaintiffs lawyers, but about victims who lack economic damages and are effectively foreclosed from access to a remedy for their other negligence-based loss.

You've also said indexing doesn't work, but not why it doesn't work. The fact that other thresholds have also not been raised is not persuasive. Money is money, and value is value, and they should be indexed, too. Otherwise, you really should be happy to work for 1970s wages. I'm not.

Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 1:27 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.


We both got the Measure numbers wrong. The "drunk Doctor" measure is 46. 47 is reducing felonies to misdemeanors. 45 is the one with the lady Doctor saying the Insurance Commissioner should not make decisions about which medical treatments Medical Insurance should cover (even though that's his job).

Doctor or not She's being paid by multi-million dollar Insurance Companies so they will NOT have to pay for experimental treatments or other medical decisions made by Doctors, which the Insurance Companies now exclude from coverage.

I am for 47. Let potheads out of prison so they lie on a sofa, smoke weed, and eat all the candy they want. Remember the Girl Scout who set up a cookie booth outside a Marijuana Clinic! This girl is a real entrepreneur!

I'm for 46 to keep drunk Doctors out of the Operating Room or even the Exam Room.

And I'm for 45, to keep big Insurance Corporations from limiting or refusing to cover patients who need expensive treatments. While this is rare, people who have had conditions not covered by their medical insurance, have had to forfeit their homes, their jobs, and their savings to go on Welfare to be covered for the treatments by Medicaid. Those are NOT good alternatives just to keep Insurance Corporations rich.


Posted by nativenation14, a resident of Valencia,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 1:34 pm

Thank you SRO for taking the time to research the Northfork Tribe and reading on prop 48 and what it means i dont mean to be shrill about it just need plenty more people to truly understand what this means for the Northfork people they have done everything by the book and took the necessary steps to get where they are and for opponents just to say No on prop 48 and win is not right by any means i just wish more people would take their time and do research to have a better understanding of what it means to the Northfork people . YES ON PROP 48!!!!!

Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 1:47 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.

Nativenaton 14,

It's almost too late to change perceptions on Prop. 48, but the North Fork tribe has to raise the money to let voters know everything that went into getting permission for this casino and that it will not make it easier for other tribes to put casinos anywhere they want. You need to start airing TV Commercials and mailers right away or 48 will fail.


Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 1:59 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.


Please vote for 46. As a lawyer increasing the MICRA might be the only thing you are interested in, but the other two conditions, requiring pharmacists and Doctors to check the CURES database and requiring Doctors to take an occasional drug test, are really the more important aspects of this measure.

This measure ISN'T for lawyers. It is for Doctors and patients. It is to protect patients from Doctors practicing while impaired (just like people should not be driving while impaired).

It is to prevent prescription drug abuse, either by Feel Good Doctors or Doctor shopping patients. Both of these are important for public safety. They may not make lawyers rich, but they might make other people (even an occasional lawyer who needs surgery or medicine) safer.


Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 2:41 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.


I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not an ambulance chasing lawyer. I'm a political blogger who is paid (very little) to share my opinions with residents and even voters at this time of year.

I know the stereotypes -- lawyers are bad and Doctors are good, but a drunk Doctor is not good.

I was in an auto accident last year and the kid (18 at the time) who hit my car was under the influence of drugs. I hired a lawyer and so far he recovered $25K from the kid's insurance (that's all the coverage he had). My lawyer is now trying to get another $75K from my $100K uninsured motorist coverage.

I was in the hospital for three days. I was not able to work for two months (lost wages). My car was totaled. My new car cost $5K more than I was reimbursed for my wrecked car. I also have some minor aches in my left shoulder as a result of the accident.

If this happens to you, I can recommend a good lawyer. So yes, sometimes lawyers are good and Doctors (anyone under the influence of drugs) are bad. I agree that one should be wary of anyone telling you how to vote. Now you know where I stand and why. You can make your own decision how to vote, but I can make my recommendations too.


Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of another community,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 3:35 pm

I covered my opposition in my blog. The proponents haven't made the case for either doctor drug-testing or mandating use of the CURES database, IMsemi-HO.

BTW, I object to your off-handed characterization of my support for the MICRA cap update. It's Not because I'm a lawyer -- there are lawyers on both sides of that issue, obviously. It's because the outdated number leaves many victims without a remedy for Actual medical negligence when it Actually occurs. They've gotten lost in the mud-flinging.

By contrast, doc-drug-testing has not been shown to reduce those errors -- it only 'might.' And docs aren't the only ones who might commit such errors -- a pharmacist did yours, for instance. Test them too? And nurses, and PAs and drug and device makers, too? Personally, I doubt that impaired docs cause many malpractice errors -- so you need to convince me that drug testing addresses a real problem. The proponents have not done so.

Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 29, 2014 at 4:14 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.


Sorry for stereotyping you as the "ambulance chasing lawyer." I should know better. Especially after telling Christopher not to stereotype lawyers.


Posted by Uncle Gator, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Oct 31, 2014 at 2:04 pm

Go Roz! Use this forum for FREE speech!!

I'm voting YES on 45 & 46 just because of ALL the Chamber and PAC money that has been thrown against it!

If you don't like Big Money running our Government PLEASE vote ONLY for George Bowen for City Council and Matt Morrison for Mayor... These are the only 2 Candidates who won't accept Developer Lobby money!!!!

Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 31, 2014 at 2:12 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.


I'm all for free speech, but since the topic of this blog is on Propositions, your candidate recommendations might get lost here. You can also start your own threads in the Town Square, where you might attract the right level of attention.


Posted by Ronskeply, a resident of Venture Independent Study School,
on Sep 25, 2017 at 10:38 am

Propecia Igual Cialis One Day Come Terapia Where To Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly [url= ]viagra cialis[/url] Viagra Doctissimo Forum Dutasteride Duprost For Sale Como Comprar Levitra Sin Receta

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

California must do a better job spending cap-and-trade revenue
By Sherry Listgarten | 2 comments | 2,245 views

Tri-Valley Nonprofit Alliance grew from chance meeting
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 1,760 views

Making wine for 140 years merits celebration
By Deborah Grossman | 0 comments | 490 views